WWGHA is dedicated to helping people who believe something without evidence. Clearly there was no murder. Why do you insist on saying there was? Did you not hear the juror who said that there simply was not the evidence to convict? Or perhaps your prejudice trumps that? It is not the justice system that is broken; the justice system reflects society. It is society that is broken. That's what I said.

I really do not understand what you are saying. The jurors all thought that a charge could not be brought against Zimmerman as the evidence would not sustain a guilty verdict. Of course, you need no evidence, you "just know."

It is thus surprising that you accuse me of poor thinking.

Quote

Why would you assume what side I "was on" in the OJ trial

Because you are showing yourself as a person who does not require evidence, nor to bother weighing evidence.

Quote

There is a difference in the Zimmerman and Simpson trials, one that klansmen people like yourself

Boy, are you an uppity nigra Afro-American? - I write that exceptional sentence by way of showing you what you are doing. If you think about it, that's about as racist as you can get - you think I'm white therefore I'm a Klansman... Your infantile crossing out shows the sort of person you are and I think that it will give you an example of how insulting your 'little joke' is.

You will by now realise that you have gone too far, and will wish to apologise.

I have mentioned before that you are arguing with your emotions not your brain. I now doubt you are using the latter.

Quote

The fact that you liken this to the OJ trial simply reveals your hood and robe for all to see.

Really, is that the best you can do? Do you think that is evidence of a murder?

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

What are you going on about, gawd? Sorry man, no more time today. Tee box #1 in 45 minutes!

You know exactly what it is, but you dont want to answer the question like a theist when they know the gig is up.

You have not provided sound reasoning as to why he shouldnt carry a gun that isnt loaded. Your argument if you would become honest enough to answer the question, is that when it is not loaded it cant do what it was meant to do, which is kill. You dont want to go into the purpose of the gun because what it actually does is open a door for a murder 1 case.

There is a lot of intellectual dishonesty going on here, and it saddens me for a website supposedly full of free thinkers.

Zimmerman had his device intended to kill on him, because he intended to kill apparently. Not having bullets, may serve as a deterrent from violence equally as well as a loaded gun, but it doesnt do what it was meant to do, kill. As you and the other clown have stated, it would be moronic to not be able to kill when having the gun on hand. This is propaganda.

The same people who tell you that it is moronic to have an unloaded gun will also tell you that if you have a gun you better be ready to use it. And if you are ready to use it, you better be ready to kill with it. So, Zimmerman being the responsible gun owner that he is was more than ready to stalk and kill with his loaded weapon. As per responsible gun ownership.

You all who are co-signing this murder are the worst that humanity has to offer.

You apparently didnt read the law on self defense, in an attempt to remain willfully ignorant. But I will pull it for you again since you appear incapable of doing anything independently.

Of course I read it, your attempts to pretend that I'm willfully ignorant notwithstanding. I am no longer willing to tolerate your continued snubs and pretentious attitude merely so you can maintain this...pretense that anyone who does not agree with you is trying to justify murder. You are only interested in validating your own belief with regards to the events that happened that night, and anyone or anything - including the facts - that get in the way are on the "side of murder" as far as you're concerned.

Quote from: The Gawd

As I stated before, Martin was well within his right to use self defense, your blood thirst for young kids not-withstanding. There you have the law, will you stop your pattern of ignorance and dishonesty and recognize the kid's right to defend himself. I will not go further with your ignorance until you acknowledge that.

I am neither ignorant nor deceptive, and you are lying here. I quoted several times from that very article you linked, yet you are claiming I never even read it. Well, I did, and even quoted from it.

Let me reiterate the critical part of that law that you are blatantly ignoring: "imminent use of unlawful force".

Imminent use of unlawful force.

Imminent use of unlawful force.

Imminent use of unlawful force.

That means that you have to believe that you are about to be attacked before you can justifiably attack another in self-defense.

I don't expect an answer, unfortunately, because you pulled the "I'm going to ignore you until you admit I'm right" trick that theists are fond of, but let me ask you straight up: Where was the "imminent use of unlawful force" regarding Zimmerman following Martin? And before you try it, the claim that Zimmerman shooting him represented an "imminent use of unlawful force" is circular reasoning. It's basically saying that merely carrying a gun represents an "imminent use of unlawful force", which is simply wrong.

There is a lot of intellectual dishonesty going on here, and it saddens me for a website supposedly full of free thinkers.

The only intellectual dishonesty in this thread is coming from you, who is using circular logic and confirmation bias to 'justify' your conclusion.

Quote from: The Gawd

Zimmerman had his device intended to kill on him, because he intended to kill apparently.

Circular reasoning. You are saying that simply carrying his gun means he intended to kill with it. Unless you've developed mind-reading talents, this is not something you can possibly prove.

Quote from: The Gawd

Not having bullets, may serve as a deterrent from violence equally as well as a loaded gun, but it doesnt do what it was meant to do, kill. As you and the other clown have stated, it would be moronic to not be able to kill when having the gun on hand. This is propaganda.

No, this is you going off the deep end. Carrying an unloaded gun - or something that looks enough like a gun to fool an observer - simply for deterrence purposes is stupid, because if you pull it out and act like you're going to shoot someone, you may well be attacked in self-defense. And what do you do if they then pull out a gun on you? But I guess that has no place in your narrative.

Quote from: The Gawd

The same people who tell you that it is moronic to have an unloaded gun will also tell you that if you have a gun you better be ready to use it. And if you are ready to use it, you better be ready to kill with it. So, Zimmerman being the responsible gun owner that he is was more than ready to stalk and kill with his loaded weapon. As per responsible gun ownership.

More circular reasoning. You are retroactively assigning motives to George Zimmerman based on the outcome of the situation. Not to mention going even further off the deep end.

Quote from: The Gawd

You all who are co-signing this murder are the worst that humanity has to offer.

Luckily, nobody here is actually co-signing his murder. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

That goes for your smite, too. It's just more beliefs not backed up by facts. Unlike you, I'm not going to pretentiously demand that you "stop it", because there's no point to such a demand. I'm not so caught up in my emotions to think I can self-righteously order someone else to stop doing something I don't like.

I can't believe I am agreeing with Nam and disagreeing (somewhat) with The Gawd! What a strange world.

Here's the thing. From the first, Zim. admitted to having shot T.M., as he, said, in self-defense. There was no doubt about that. Anyway, there is no way to know if Zim. wanted to kill someone that night, but if he thought that he could carry a loaded gun around and nobody would ever get hurt, he was living a fantasy. I don't think most people, even prejudiced and ignorant people, want to kill anyone. He wanted to end the confrontation, but he had a loaded gun to end it with, not his words, or his fists, or a stick, or a can of pepper spray.

It appears that the law in Florida does not even require much of an investigation if someone shoots someone in self-defense. Because it does not seem that the police did much investigating that night. It is the law that is problematic. Zim. is no hero but he is not a demon, either. He was just lucky he pulled the trigger in Florida, as opposed to say, Canada. According to the law, he did not commit murder. If he had done exactly the same thing in a different state or country, he might be in prison for at least manslaughter because Zim. admitted to shooting the kid.

If Zim. really did not want to kill, he should not have had a loaded gun. It is disingenuous to claim that you can carry a loaded gun around, and not think that you might shoot, wound and possibly kill, someone. Nobody should be that naïve. A loaded gun makes a piss-poor hammer, doorstop, backscratcher, fireplace poker, (wo)manhood surrogate, sign of adulthood or warning. People need to stop thinking the real world is like the movies. If you have a gun, you are far more likely to shoot and kill someone than if you don't have one.

In a way it is exactly like the credit card analogy. If you have a credit card with 5000 bucks limit, you are far more likely to run that up than if you don't have one. You may never take the card out of your wallet and charge anything. But that is mainly what the credit card is for. Similarly, most people never have to pull out their gun and fire it-- even most police officers never do in their entire careers. But the potential is there and the likelihood of use-- and misuse--increases dramatically if you add fear, racial animosity, stupidity, bad judgment, immaturity, alcohol, etc.

What else is a gun for, if not to potentially shoot at someone? I am disgusted by people (adults) who fool around with guns, end up shooting someone, and then act surprised that a hole appeared in their friend or relative or some total stranger and they died. If you are not prepared to shoot at someone, you should not be carrying a loaded weapon. And if you are prepared to shoot, you have to understand that you might kill the person you shoot at.

I will have to agree with nogodsforme. As much as i am standing for trayvon's side, i would have to agree that it could be self defense, Zim committed no crime (Nor did Trayvon) and he may not have intended to kill. The thing is, i'm more pissed how some people would automatically jump on Trayvon and assume he's a punk who deserved it with no evidence for it. Besides, i don't pretend Trayvon was a saint, but Zimmerman wasn't a hero in the slightest.

Another thing, i am not siding with the "not guilty" side because there's more holes in this case i think. Besides, it's not like Zimmerman wouldn't lie. Anyone would lie to get away from punishment. But of course, i'm not saying i know he's guilty either, but i don't know. As for the purpose of gun; defense and offense. It has to do with what each individual with a gun intents to do. I've seen folks with guns at a grocery store i work at.Did they wave it out to murder anyone? No. They have it so they won't be harmed. But i don't have a gun because i don't want to make the mistake of killing anyone or have anyone kill me. but of course, even without a gun, i'm vulnerable.

The idea that trayvon returned and jumped Zimmerman didn't make sense to me, which is one of the thing why i am not siding with the "not guilty" party. Also, i read somewhere where the jury were only give the choice of not guilty or hung jury.

Logged

Me:What are you looking at Eminem?Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.

What are you going on about, gawd? Sorry man, no more time today. Tee box #1 in 45 minutes!

You know exactly what it is, but you dont want to answer the question like a theist when they know the gig is up.

No, actually, I did not.

Quote

You have not provided sound reasoning as to why he shouldnt carry a gun that isnt loaded. Your argument if you would become honest enough to answer the question, is that when it is not loaded it cant do what it was meant to do, which is kill. You dont want to go into the purpose of the gun because what it actually does is open a door for a murder 1 case.

Nope, that's not my argument at all, but thanks for playing!

My argument is that it's moronic to carry an unloaded gun because at that point it's just a poorly designed paperweight. And, pulling out a poorly designed paperweight can get you killed, especially when the person on the other end might think it actually has bullets in it.

Quote

There is a lot of intellectual dishonesty going on here, and it saddens me for a website supposedly full of free thinkers.

Oh, an appeal to emotion. Are you sure you're not a theist?

Quote

Zimmerman had his device intended to kill on him, because he intended to kill apparently.

Wow, you're getting pretty good at reading minds. You should try to win that million bucks from JREF.

Quote

Not having bullets, may serve as a deterrent from violence equally as well as a loaded gun, but it doesnt do what it was meant to do, kill. As you and the other clown have stated, it would be moronic to not be able to kill when having the gun on hand. This is propaganda.

No, this is fact.

Quote

The same people who tell you that it is moronic to have an unloaded gun will also tell you that if you have a gun you better be ready to use it. And if you are ready to use it, you better be ready to kill with it. So, Zimmerman being the responsible gun owner that he is was more than ready to stalk and kill with his loaded weapon. As per responsible gun ownership.

You all who are co-signing this murder are the worst that humanity has to offer.

As has been stated before, being prepeared does not equal intent. We have no way of knowing Zim's intent. You're basing your entire argument on emotion. Stop doing that.

Zimmerman had his device intended to kill on him, because he intended to kill apparently.

Wow, you're getting pretty good at reading minds. You should try to win that million bucks from JREF.

I've got to add, by the way: The Gawd, this statement is beyond ridiculous. It's like saying that because I have a fire extinguisher in my house, I intend to have a fire, or that because I wear a seat belt whenever I drive, I intend to crash my car.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

^That's some of what I've been trying to get across to him. You can't judge intent by the results of a situation because it's assuming only one explanation for an outcome. You also can't judge intent by someone's level of preparedness, because it's assuming only one reason for an action. Both of these fall under the [wiki]denying the antecedent[/wiki] fallacy.

For this situation, it's the equivalent of saying, "George Zimmerman was carrying a gun and shot Trayvon Martin. Therefore, he must have intended to shoot someone otherwise he wouldn't have been carrying his gun." Or, as The Gawd actually said, "Zimmerman had his device intended to kill on him, because he intended to kill apparently."

Zimmerman had his device intended to kill on him, because he intended to kill apparently.

Wow, you're getting pretty good at reading minds. You should try to win that million bucks from JREF.

I've got to add, by the way: The Gawd, this statement is beyond ridiculous. It's like saying that because I have a fire extinguisher in my house, I intend to have a fire, or that because I wear a seat belt whenever I drive, I intend to crash my car.

You don't?!?!?! Shame on you.

-Nam

Logged

Quote from: David Garrett Arnold

there are oceans of words aged in prayer,against geometric lines, and cloudbeaten skies;credulous allure—slowly captivated in hearts fair—trees and flowers bloomed in grace upon one's eyes.

^That's some of what I've been trying to get across to him. You can't judge intent by the results of a situation because it's assuming only one explanation for an outcome. You also can't judge intent by someone's level of preparedness, because it's assuming only one reason for an action. Both of these fall under the [wiki]denying the antecedent[/wiki] fallacy.

For this situation, it's the equivalent of saying, "George Zimmerman was carrying a gun and shot Trayvon Martin. Therefore, he must have intended to shoot someone otherwise he wouldn't have been carrying his gun." Or, as The Gawd actually said, "Zimmerman had his device intended to kill on him, because he intended to kill apparently."

Respectfully, I would put a gun in a different category, personally. It has no other purpose other than to kill. A person who feels the need to carry a gun for any reason at all, has no other position to stand on. Carrying a gun while doing neighborhood patrol automatically puts one in the position of very few choices: show you have a weapon, draw the weapon, fire the weapon. All of those actions are by definition an act of aggression towards another person, regardless of the reason, and especially if the other person is unarmed.

The neighborhood watches that I grew up with would drive the streets in shifts, armed with radios. They would contact a base station with relevant information, and the base station would contact authorities if needed. Under no circumstances would a neighborhood watch engage anyone they thought was suspicious.

Edit: I should add that I am of the opinion that Zimmerman should not have left his car. I blame the death of TM solely on Zimmerman. TM did not deserve to die over the feelings and fears that Zimmerman apparently carried.

Respectfully, I would put a gun in a different category, personally. It has no other purpose other than to kill. A person who feels the need to carry a gun for any reason at all, has no other position to stand on.

So all the cops out there doing daily work intend to kill, just because they carry loaded guns? Because that's the argument that the Gawd is putting forward.

Quote

Carrying a gun while doing neighborhood patrol automatically puts one in the position of very few choices: show you have a weapon, draw the weapon, fire the weapon.

Unless, of course, one just holds a suspect/perpetrator at gunpoint, without firing. Do you think that never happens? My guess is it happens fairly frequently, in both private and public arenas. But only a fool would try that tactic with an unloaded weapon.

For the record, I'm not defending Zim either. I think he made a huge, tragic mistake. Whether on accident or on purpose, I don't presume to know.

Unless, of course, one just holds a suspect/perpetrator at gunpoint, without firing. Do you think that never happens? My guess is it happens fairly frequently, in both private and public arenas.

I haven't looked it up in a while, but if memory serves, in the United States, guns that are used for defense are only ever fired in something like seven percent of all such cases (and in most of those cases, only a warning shot is fired). In the other 93% of cases, the gun is merely brandished, and the perpetrator either flees or is apprehended. So in other words, yes, you're right.

Quote

But only a fool would try that tactic with an unloaded weapon.

Definitely.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

With all due respect, jetson, and speaking as someone who doesn't own (never mind carry) a gun, the reasoning you are putting forward here is flawed. I have self-defense training that would allow me to kill a person with my bare hands - the purpose of those techniques is to kill someone. Does that mean that, by having learned them, I have no position to stand on? I 'carry' them around with me all the time, since I'm trained in them.

That is the fault in your logic. A person carrying a gun is responsible for the use to which they put it, as is anyone who knows or has something that is potentially lethal. But that does not mean that when they 'carry' it, they intend to go out and kill people with it. Indeed, I would much prefer never to have to use techniques like that against another person. But the time may come when I have to, to protect myself or someone else.

If I had someone on top of me, beating my head into the ground (or into a concrete sidewalk), and I retaliated, killing them, I'd be responsible for their death. But the fact of the matter is that self-defense training is fundamentally about knowing how to act as forcefully as possible in order to defend yourself - and then putting restraints on that forcefulness so you don't use it unless it's necessary and you use no more of it than necessary.

And it's certainly true that Martin did not deserve to die. But he could have made better choices as well. Simply going into his house and calling the police, for example, rather than hanging around outside for whatever reason.

In movies with some suspense or danger, there is always a character who goes to investigate the strange noise outside at night or follows the bad guy into the abandoned warehouse. Alone, often unarmed. When my daughter sees this she always yells, "He's being stooopid!"

It has become a joke in our family to the point where my husband and I yell it when we are watching movies without her.

If the Zim-TM interaction had been a movie, my daughter would have been beside herself. Because they were both "being stooopid". And one of them had a loaded gun. And it was no movie.

Not really. For every incident like the one you cited, there are hundreds where armed police officers never even have to draw their weapons, let alone shoot to kill with them. And you might note that they used a stun gun and beanbag rounds.

Quote from: screwtape

Some reports do not mention a 12" knife, but rather a metal shoe horn. I suspect the po-po said it was a 12" knife to make their murder seem more justifiable.

And I think you should read the articles you link more carefully. In it, they said he had a metal shoe horn at first, but that he went for a butcher knife, and that's when the police used that stun gun on him.

Do you have a bias against police officers, screwtape? I ask because of the way you referred to them and your accusing them of murder.